Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Facebook Avoids Ad Blockers

dylanpaulus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 241 posts

Re: How Facebook Avoids Ad Blockers

#101

Post by dm33tri »

tsimionescu wrote: post #70
abhiminator wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cannot agree more. Quit Facebook and its sister service completely (talking about WhatsApp; never really got around to using Instagram) after the 'View As' feature exploit last year that led to 50 mil user accounts' data being exposed [0], and I must say, I've never felt more calmer, tranquil or better, mental health wise. I feel our brains could do much better with a little less of constant bombardment of highlight-…

Quitting Facebook itself would help with what you are saying, but I am curious what you replaced WhatsApp/Messenger with. For example, I have good friends in other countries, and sending pictures and short texts is one of the best ways to stay in contact. We do talk over the phone occasionally, but not having a simple way to send pictures or links would pull us much further apart. Sure, email could be an option, but…

Telegram might be convenient, it's a middle ground between bloated Facebook things and "geeky" apps like Signal (I don't dislike it, but it's just unpopular).

Re: How Facebook Avoids Ad Blockers

#102

Post by veselin »

edf13 wrote: post #99
veselin wrote: post #42

Yes. This is horrible behavior from Facebook. I had a similar problem finding a working extension that blocks fbclk id. Well, I found one, but I am not sure I would want to share it, because the facebook engineering team may go after it as well. This also renders nil the argument about "don't use the product if you don't like their (ad) practices". Tracking across websites without consent is illegal in most of Europe…

Devils Advocate... why is it horrible behaviour from Facebook? It's their product which needs to be paid for by Ads and they need to prevent Ad Blockers from stopping these from being served. So in their defence - any technical work around is fair on their part.

Nobody forbids them to put ads. However, there are laws (not even talking moral here). If you explicitly download a tracking blocking extension, you want to opt out of tracking, which is required by law that they provide.

What I am saying is that not only they track you, but they explicitly break the top extensions that fix this. From this point of view, I have no regret for any of their ads being blocked.

Re: How Facebook Avoids Ad Blockers

#103

Post by johnsea »

tsimionescu wrote: post #70
abhiminator wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cannot agree more. Quit Facebook and its sister service completely (talking about WhatsApp; never really got around to using Instagram) after the 'View As' feature exploit last year that led to 50 mil user accounts' data being exposed [0], and I must say, I've never felt more calmer, tranquil or better, mental health wise. I feel our brains could do much better with a little less of constant bombardment of highlight-…

Quitting Facebook itself would help with what you are saying, but I am curious what you replaced WhatsApp/Messenger with. For example, I have good friends in other countries, and sending pictures and short texts is one of the best ways to stay in contact. We do talk over the phone occasionally, but not having a simple way to send pictures or links would pull us much further apart. Sure, email could be an option, but…

Threema. You pay a certain modest sum and get a service. A terribly old-fashioned business model it seems... (but works for me).

Re: How Facebook Avoids Ad Blockers

#104

Post by trishmapow2 »

RandallBrown wrote: post #73
rabidrat wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a really good observation. What if we required all ad-based services to make available an equivalent premium offering that showed no ads? I think 99% of people would be stunned at the necessary price and would not pay it anyway, but at least it would be quantified.

Google used to have a service where you set a monthly spend and it would basically bid for ad space, using your money. Instead of displaying the actual ads, it would display an image of your choosing. It was a pretty great idea and I can't remember what it was called, but it's no longer around as far as I can tell. Something like that on any ad supported platform would be pretty neat.

Are you referring to this? https://contributor.google.com/v/beta

I've heard it mentioned here and there, seems like it shut down in 2016 and restarted in 2017.

Re: How Facebook Avoids Ad Blockers

#105

Post by Nextgrid »

atemerev wrote: post #94
Nextgrid wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least poker doesn't have a negative effect on society, given you're only playing against people who opt-in by playing the game. This in comparison is fighting against people who just want a bit of peace and less sewage being dumped in their Facebook timeline.

Being on Facebook is opt-in. I do use FB Messenger for talking to relatives, but that's about all.

It’s not opt-in when the cancer has contaminated a significant chunk of the web with like buttons and other stalking scripts and when the majority of the world is using it as its preferred communication platform, meaning opting out is inconvenient.

Re: How Facebook Avoids Ad Blockers

#106

Post by scarejunba »

beefield wrote: post #45
rabidrat wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a really good observation. What if we required all ad-based services to make available an equivalent premium offering that showed no ads? I think 99% of people would be stunned at the necessary price and would not pay it anyway, but at least it would be quantified.

This is one of the more important regulations big tech should be subjected to in my opinion. Let me pay for the services I use, with believable guarantees that my data is not used or sold in any way by the service provider. And regulate the cost to be a reasonable margin over production costs of these services. Hosting my hosting my posts and photos should not be that expensive.

I've seen lots of people say this but like maybe a fraction of people use GSuite like I do (even my phone number is on my GSuite). Big talk from HN usually. Maybe you'll do it but a fraction of people do.

There are no ads in GSuite mail.

So you take the fraction of people who will do that and see if it's worth building. Answer: it's not worth it for practically anyone. It's like building a Bitcoin integration. Everyone "would buy if it would accept Bitcoin" but come on, no one is actually in that narrow space of utility where the difference in buying is adding Bitcoin or not.

If you guys build software maybe you'll see it yourself. Go ahead and try it. Maybe one in five hundred of you will see positive results.

Re: How Facebook Avoids Ad Blockers

#107

Post by tsimionescu »

aerique wrote: post #92
tsimionescu wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quitting Facebook itself would help with what you are saying, but I am curious what you replaced WhatsApp/Messenger with. For example, I have good friends in other countries, and sending pictures and short texts is one of the best ways to stay in contact. We do talk over the phone occasionally, but not having a simple way to send pictures or links would pull us much further apart. Sure, email could be an option, but…

From before the Facebook acquisition WhatsApp had gotten really embedded in The Netherlands (and the rest of Europe?) as a free replacement for paid SMS service. Not only because it was free but also more convenient for sending long messages, pictures, etc. compared to the MMS hellhole. I've been trying to get people on Signal but it's a struggle especially for older people used to WhatsApp. For a lot of them WhatsAp…

What I was curious about with GP's comment was more on the aspect of social/psychological effects of social media. I know Signal/Telegram/others could be used as a 1:1 replacement of WA/Messenger for the purpose of avoiding Facebook Inc.

I was wondering if they found some other strategy to keep in contact with their close ones without using messaging in the first place, not replacing Facebook services with some other service.

Re: How Facebook Avoids Ad Blockers

#108

Post by gorgoiler »

Relatedly, uBlock Origin’s picker has really improved my quality of life on Facebook.

I love Facebook, it’s my only remaining connection to some people, and it’s revived many friendships I thought I’d lost.

However, as one gets on in life, People You May Know can be extremely emotionally impactful. It is a little part of the web UI that brings back the dead, ex partners I still miss, exes who have moved on, and toxic people I had tried to move on from.

It’s really put me through the wringer and being able to block that part of the UI forever is something I’m very glad Facebook, in the role I have gladly given it as being an overseer of my (mostly good) emotions, does not and shouldn’t ever stop me from doing. I hope they realize this.

Re: How Facebook Avoids Ad Blockers

#109

Post by squiggleblaz »

commoner wrote: post #85
tomashubelbauer wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to add that it is not necessary to leave Facebook to not use Facebook. I have a FB account and I'll never close it, because I like having my username on all online services I might use if once. That being said I only have it logged in at a home desktop, not my phone, not any work machine. I use it for like two minutes weekly, one to check a few specialty groups I'm a lurker in and two to co-admin a page with…

Although you're not a heavy Facebook user, you still use it weekly. People who don't want to use Facebook at all would benefit from deleting their accounts, because leaving Facebook adds a hurdle that discourages them from returning to Facebook.

Well, sure, but there's a difference between using Facebook heavily and using Facebook occasionally. It's not a binary. Indeed, you can even use Facebook once in a blue moon. For instance, you can log out on all your devices and set your password to something you've autogenerated but you haven't saved so you have to go through the "forgot password" process.

Facebook wants to be addictive, but it's okay and possible to use it once every two or three months so you can add your great aunt and post holiday photos (so people know you're safe). And by using Facebook less, it takes away some of Mark Zuckerberg's power over you and our society.

Re: How Facebook Avoids Ad Blockers

#110

Post by phito »

1propionyl wrote: post #53

I'm surprised I haven't seen a single comment say what ought to be the obvious: the easiest way to never see Facebook ads is to just not use Facebook. I should hope I'm preaching to the choir, I'm sure, but... quitting really isn't as hard as you tell yourself it is. It's not as essential as you think it is.

I never liked facebook so I never really used it, deleted my account 3 years ago. I always was (and still am) against their practices and business model.

I have a hobby which is growing carnivorous plants and last year I started a small side business selling my extra plants. The entire community is now on facebook (before that it was mostly forums) and I had to reopen an account to be part of it.

Sadly it is essential for some people. Not facebook itself, but the fact that it is the main social network makes it essential if you want to be a part of some communities. I hate that I have to use Facebook, but I don't have the choice.

It opened so many more opportunities for me than when I wasn't using it, it has really been surreal and I've never felt more engaged and happy in my life. I wouldn't credit facebook for it because in the end, it's the people on it that brings me happyness, but there's no way I would have interacted with them without it.

Of course if you don't have any hobbies/business that depends on it, deleting Facebook is indeed the way to go, but for a lot of people it's not such a black or white thing

Post reply on HN